MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990867087 · doi:10.18280/ria.330308

A Neighborhood Structure-Preserving Bi-objective Optimization Method Based on Class Center and Discriminant Analysis and Its Application in Facial Recognition

2019· article· en· W2990867087 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wenying Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicRemote Sensing and Land Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear discriminant analysisCenter (category theory)Pattern recognition (psychology)Class (philosophy)DiscriminantArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFacial recognition systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on class center and discriminant analysis, this paper puts forward a novel bi-objective optimization method that preserves the neighborhood structure, and applies it to facial recognition. Firstly, the locally preserving projection (LPP) was improved into the class-center locally preserving projection (CLPP) by replacing the sample-based neighborhood structure with the class center-based neighborhood structure. Next, a bi-objective optimization model was developed based on the CLPP and linear discriminant analysis (LDA), and solved by the multi-objective optimization theory. The bi-objective optimization problem combines the merits of single-target CLPP and single-target LDA: the class center-based neighborhood structure is preserved, and the class information is introduced naturally, making up for the defect of the LDA due to the manual changes of adjacency coefficient and highlighting the physical meaning. Finally, several experiments were conducted on AR, CAS-60 and FERET face databases. The experimental results prove that our methods are correct and effective, and the bi-objective optimization method based on CLPP and LDA (CLPP+LDA) achieved the best recognition effect.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicRemote Sensing and Land UseFrench-language works237,207